A Boise police officer wanted records from his own personnel file. The city denied them
The city of Boise has agreed to a settlement with a local police officer who filed a lawsuit over his access to records that were part of his own personnel file last year.
The city agreed to pay the officer $30,000 for his costs and attorney fees at the end of April, according to a copy of the settlement agreement. The officer has also appealed the discipline brought against him, and the settlement allows him to continue his appeal. As part of the agreement, the lawsuit was dismissed by mutual agreement of both parties.
The dismissal, finalized earlier this month in the 4th District Court in Ada County, came before a judge ruled on whether the records needed to be released.
Officer Sean T. Stace, a 15-year Boise police officer, sued the city in November shortly after he had been denied access to a copy of the internal affairs investigation into his conduct, which included records from his and other officers’ files.
Stace was investigated by the department’s Office of Internal Affairs beginning in August, after a citizen complained about him. It’s unclear what the complaint was, but by October, the investigators had found sufficient evidence to prove the allegations, according to an email from a police lieutenant included in the lawsuit.
After a report on the investigation was finished, a lawyer for Stace, Joseph Mallet, asked to see the full investigation. According to the lawsuit, the Police Department sent Mallet a copy of the investigation’s final report and a recording of Stace’s interview with the investigators but didn’t send the supporting documents.
Mallet said the denial was “in bad faith” and sued within days. The city argued that it is standard practice to not make investigative documents available while an investigation is ongoing. Mallet had made the request to obtain the records before Boise’s Police Review Board held a hearing on his case.
In an email, Mallet said Stace was “happy” with the outcome but feels he should not have had to sue.
“As a result of this lawsuit, the city provided multiple files and over 200 pages of documents that he believes had been wrongfully withheld, agreed to restart his affected disciplinary appeal process, and paid for his attorney fees incurred in bringing the lawsuit,” Mallet wrote. “BPD has also promised to clarify their policy language to make sure access to these documents is not denied to any BPD employee in the future.”
A city spokesperson declined to comment on the case.
The settlement notes that “Boise does not admit or concede, in any way, that it withheld records in violation of the Idaho Public Records Act, or that the conduct at issue would subject Boise to an award of attorney’s fees and costs or to the imposition of a civil penalty.”
Denial of some police records prompts lawsuit
In a court filing, a deputy city attorney who had corresponded with Mallet, Bryan Norton, wrote that “multiple law enforcement agencies throughout Idaho” interpret the state’s public records law to exempt internal investigation records into police officers from disclosure until after the investigations are finished.
The same day the lawsuit was filed in November, the Police Review Board held a hearing, after which corrective action was issued, according to another city filing.
On Dec. 2, after the case was closed, Boise “voluntarily disclosed” most of the records Stace had asked for, according to a brief filed by city attorneys. The lawyers said they had denied sending him seven documents that were the “personnel records of other individuals” and redacted 11 other documents that contained similar personal information before sending them to Mallet.
Megan Larrondo, the deputy city attorney, wrote that Stace’s lawsuit was “only made necessary by his hasty decision to file suit,” and that he should have continued the “dialogue” with city lawyers instead.
“Until an investigation ends, the individual is not entitled to review records related to themselves when those investigatory records would otherwise be exempt from disclosure under the (public records act),” Larrondo added.
In a follow-up filing in January, Mallet argued that Norton, in an email to him, had indicated the city’s position was final, meaning that no further “dialogue” would have been fruitful.
Attorney asks judge to rule on city’s record handling
Mallet also argued that the city’s refusal to disclose information about Stace’s colleagues was improper and asked for a judge to rule on the city’s handling of its records.
“It is hard to imagine that somehow the criminal process continues to function while giving an accused felon access to evidence, but somehow a disciplinary process cannot function when a police officer is accused of violating an employment policy and requests access to the evidence against him,” Mallet wrote.
In an amended declaration, Norton wrote that the Police Department’s policies on what to release did not “specify exactly” what documents should be released to an officer ahead of their Review Board hearing, and that policies have changed over the years under different department leadership.
“Since this case was filed, BPD has decided upon a more consistent approach to records release in these types of situations as part of its ongoing review of its policies,” Norton wrote. “This list includes more records than what I understood was released as of November.”
On April 28, both parties jointly filed a stipulation to dismiss the case, which in Idaho automatically happens when all parties agree to the outcome. Fourth District Judge Peter Barton dismissed the case on May 4.
This story was originally published May 16, 2023 at 4:00 AM.
